tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15300956.post5904230228960869915..comments2007-04-10T07:43:47.087-05:00Samuel D. Bradleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14650475595508748959noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15300956.post-4362776362282863452007-04-10T07:43:00.000-05:002007-04-10T07:43:00.000-05:00I will check this out.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, I have clarified the Luntz comments.Samuel D. Bradleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14650475595508748959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15300956.post-75793836508823581242007-04-10T00:12:00.000-05:002007-04-10T00:12:00.000-05:00Good stuff on the whole, but..<BR/><BR/>Your claim that Frank Luntz reframed "global warming" as "climate change" is simply wrong. "Global warming" has a narrow technical meaning as well as a broad semiotic one, and people who like to muddy the waters happily swing back and forth from one to the other. <BR/><BR/>When a scientist says global warming, he or she means exactly "an increasing trend in global mean surface temperature". Well, we've got one, and that's the most reliable prediction in climate change, but climate change is really the problem.<BR/><BR/>It's to solve the glaring miscommunication between science and the public that I advocate not using the expression "global warming" at all. I'm afraid it's a lost cause, but if you want to see my reasoning, check out <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=92#more-92" REL="nofollow">my feature article at realclimate</A> on the subject.<BR/><BR/>Also I have been thinking about these framing matters on my <A HREF="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">blog</A> and would welcome your opinons.Michael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com